Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.32 seconds)Section 4 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006
Section 42 in The English And Foreign Languages University Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 42 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shaw, Wallace And Co. on 14 March, 1932
13. The argument from the use of the word " source" in the Act is supported by appeal to principle, and cases under the English Act have been referred to on the matter. It would be both unreasonable and ungrateful to complain of the use made, by learned Counsel on both sides, of the English decisions, but their Lordships have carefully to remind themselves that " the Indian Act is not in pan materia ; it is less elaborate in many ways, subject to fewer refinements, and in arrangement and language it differs greatly from the provisions with which the Courts in this country have had to deal" (per Sir George Lowndes in Shaw Wallace & Co. (supra) at 212). The English Act has for many years imposed the tax upon all who exercise a trade within the United Kingdom and observations of English Judges by way of exposition of this policy cannot be authority on the problem under the Indian Act. In any case their Lordships are not satisfied that, apart from the dictate of any statute, authority in England has established the proposition that: the place at which profit accrues or arises is the place of central control.
Section 66 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Secretary, Board Of Revenue ... vs Ripon Press And Sugar Mills Company, ... on 29 January, 1923
20. The consideration that the view now taken by their Lordships would appear to have been accepted hitherto in India is one which they mention last, as the question is raised as one of construction of a statute. But it would be paying less respect than is due to the decisions of the Indian Courts if mention were not now made of the cases Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramnathan Chetty (1919) 1 I.T.C. 37 ; The Aurangabad Mills, In re (1921) 1 I.T.C. 116; Board of Revenue v. Ripon Press & Sugar Mills (1923) 1 I.T.C. 202; Jiwan Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab (1929) 4 I.T.C. 40, f.b. ; Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency v. Sarupchand Hukamchand (1930) I.L.R. 55 Bom. 231. s.c. 33 Bom. L.R. 382. These and other cases have been fully considered by the Board. The construction which the appellant seeks to put upon the Act has no direct support from them and the main current of authority in India is inconsistent therewith.